Progrès scientifique

For some years now, prospects for the development of productivity – and, by extension, for increased economic growth – have been much debated, particularly among economists. While there has never been so much talk of the rise of digital technologies and the upheavals they could bring – and even of a “Third Industrial Revolution” – in a large number of so-called advanced countries, we actually find a trend in recent times towards lower productivity growth. Now if such a trend were to become established, it might go along with an era of lasting economic stagnation. In this issue, Futuribles initiates a discussion on this question of the slowdown in productivity gains and its consequences, particularly on the future state of jobs and employment.

Charles du Granrut lays out the core issues here and the main positions of the researchers contributing to the debate. He demonstrates the essential and yet not easily measurable role of the technological factor (because of the indicators currently employed), and also the possible limits to analyses originating mainly from the USA.

In an article published in the journal Electronics in 1965, Gordon E. Moore, then Research and Development Director at Fairchild Semiconductor (a semi-conductor manufacturer of which he was a cofounder), pondered the future of integrated circuits, which had been invented in 1958 by the American Jack Kilby (he would receive the Nobel prize for physics in 2000). In 1965, these circuits were made up of several components (transistors, resistors, condensers etc.) integrated on a single wafer and performing more than one function (today they are called micro-chips). In his article, Moore estimated that the dimensions of these circuits would continue to reduce and that it would be possible to double the number of components on a circuit every two years, thus making it possible to increase its performance and, in particular, its operating speed. This is the famous Moore’s Law. He contended that these circuits would pave the way for new machines (from portable computers to electronic watches) and improve the performance of systems like radar.

His article was genuinely far-sighted, since these predictions actually came to pass. He also speculated on the extreme limits to the miniaturization of circuits, having understood that at a very small scale it would be increasingly difficult to cope with the problem of heat (which is given off by the Joule effect when an electrical current meets resistance). Moore was to reconsider the terms of his law – the biennial doubling of the performance of circuits – on several occasions. At one point he envisaged the possibility they might double in performance every 18 months, but in 1975 he confirmed the original two-year hypothesis formulated in his 1965 article.

For some years now, prospects for the development of productivity – and, by extension, for increased economic growth – have been much debated, particularly among economists. While there has never been so much talk of the rise of digital technologies and the upheavals they could bring, in a large number of so-called advanced countries we actually find a trend in recent times towards lower productivity growth. Now if such a trend were to become established, it might go along with an era of lasting economic stagnation. This is why, in this issue, Futuribles is initiating discussion on this question of the slowdown in productivity gains and its consequences on the economy of the countries concerned, as well as on the future state of jobs and employment.

Antonin Bergeaud, Gilbert Cette and Rémy Lecat, who have been working on this subject for several years, launch our inquiry with a conspectus of long-term labour productivity trends in the main developed countries, focusing particularly on the slowdown witnessed in the last two decades. Examining the published studies, they identify the possible origins of this and outline the longer term prospects for productivity growth (downturn or rally?) that might be anticipated. Lastly, in view of the divergences observed between the developed nations (particularly vis-à-vis the United States), they show how much ground Europe currently has to make up in terms of productivity.

An increasing number of books and articles have appeared in recent years on the theme of transhumanism, prompted by the extremely rapid scientific and technical progress that seems to bode well for proponents of this school of thought. Transhumanism, which was popularized in North America in the 1960s (by, among others, Ray Kurzweil) and particularly in the 1980s (when a movement of significant scale formed around these ideas), advocates the use of science and technology to improve the physical and mental characteristics of human beings and hence push humanity beyond the human condition in the narrow sense. The term “transhumanism” is not, however, a recent one, as Olivier Dard and Alexandre Moatti show in this ‘Futures of Yesteryear’ feature: it goes back, at least, to the 1930s and might even predate the 20th century. This article looks at the semantic origins of the term and the authors who presided over its emergence, enabling us to put a fashionable concept back into context.

In the last Futuribles issue of 2013, Jean-Michel Besnier analysed the ideology of the transhumanists and the different visions of the “posthuman” they were inclined to promote. And, in another article, Adrien Marck and his co-authors raised the question of the potential limits to humanity, both in terms of resources and also of physical performance. Are human beings doomed, then, to stagnate or will they “mutate” under the influence of ever more specialized technological innovations?

As Pierre-Yves Cusset shows here, the enhancement of human capacities is an ancient dream which is, in part, becoming reality as the years go by and advances are made in various scientific fields. However, in the context of accelerating technological progress and an increasing convergence between nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, information technology and the cognitive sciences (NBIC), that dream is prompting major ethical debates, including within the scientific community. How do things stand today? What technologies for the improvement of physical and cognitive faculties are already being used to repair or develop human capacities? Which are being examined for future use? What perspectives do these open up and what (environmental, health, social…) risks do they imply? These are the questions dealt with in this article which stresses a number of ethical and philosophical issues that need to be faced before we engage in such a race to improve human performance.

Given the psychological, social and political effects to which it may give rise, the acceleration of scientific and technical developments is as fascinating as it is troubling. A glimpse into how trans-humanism has deployed its scientific arguments to demonstrate the inevitability of the post-human was given some time ago in these pages (issue no. 370). Jean-Michel Besnier goes deeper into the analysis of the trans-humanist “doctrine”, showing its historical origins and presenting the many –at times very disparate– objectives it covers, as well as the future prospects it might enjoy.

In “the intellectual prehistory of trans-humanism”, Besnier recalls, among other things, the tendency of scientists like Einstein to mix science and metaphysics; he refers also to more ancient doctrines such as the “hermeticism” of Antiquity or “Christian gnosis”, which argue that knowledge will inevitably make possible an improvement of humanity. He places greatest emphasis, however, on the American counterculture of the 1960s which, though opposed to materialistic society, paradoxically paved the way for an ideology aimed at transforming society through technology and for a new materialism.

Besnier then examines the nature of trans-humanism today, observing that, despite some attempts at philosophical legitimation, the concept remains particularly vague and even at times conveys contradictory visions which in many cases amount ultimately to a post-humanism that aims, through technological advances, to transform the human race and move beyond it. Finally, reflecting on the future of this movement (“between ethics and apocalypse”), he stresses that post-humanism and trans-humanism are concerned neither with ethical questions nor sociological thinking, it being their ambition rather to compensate for the shortcomings and failings of the human through technology, in the hope that the species will avoid coming to a sorry end. However, this –already highly contested– “hypermodern” vision will not make much headway, he concludes, unless it develops some solid arguments at the socio-political level.

Railways, which first came into being in Britain in 1825, contributed greatly to the industrial revolution that characterized Europe in the 19th century. Following its British rival, France began building its first stretches of railway in 1830 and extended these to some 1,800 miles by 1850 (a long way short of the 6,600 miles of the British network at that same date). Nevertheless, the creation of the French rail network would, between 1838 and 1845, spark great public controversy and debates within the government and among parliamentary representatives.

The “Futures of Yesteryear” feature presented here was part of these debates. The piece in question is a speech delivered on 11 May 1842 by the parliamentary deputy (and poet) Alphonse de Lamartine in response to an amendment by Adolphe Thiers, which was aimed at thwarting the government project of building a railway system that radiated out from Paris by constructing a single line to run from the Belgian border to the Mediterranean through the capital. Lamartine opposed this plan vigorously, pointing out in particular the advantage for all France’s regions, and also for trade and industry –not to mention the military– of a network that covered most of the national territory. His address also underlines the importance of the state acting as a strategic agency in the service of those under its jurisdiction. Lastly, at the end of his speech, in response to various diatribes against technical progress (arising, in particular, in the wake of rail accidents), Lamartine stresses the extent to which that progress remains crucial for the forward march of civilization, despite the sporadic cases of harm it may occasion.